[zk]

[quote=Blogstar] So,yeah it does make sense to see what we get compared to the proles in other regions because it will equalize. Just a matter of a few generations. [/quote]

When I say “it” could happen in a few generations, I’m not talking about a consortium. I’m talking about a much lower standard of living in first-world countries, and possibly a marginally higher standard of living in other countries.

I don’t see enough consensus happening for any kind of consortium. Ever. Then there’s the logistical nightmare.

Likely I didn’t understand what you meant by consortium. I’m curious what form you see this consortium taking and (generally) how it would be accomplished.

[zk]

[quote=Brutus]
Hate the fat, not the person.
[/quote]
[quote=Brutus]
It’s your fat mouth, blubber-butt.
[/quote]

[quote=Brutus]
Spoken like a fatty. Fat fat fatty fat. You are fat.
[/quote]
[quote=Brutus]
And don’t shoot the messenger. Even if the message is harsh.
No one notices when you deliver bad news with a smiley face.[/quote]

It’s not necessarily the harshness of your message that’s the problem, Brutus. It’s the fact that you don’t make any sense and you’re here for the wrong reason. As shown above, you’re just hateful and unaware of your inconsistency and your ignorance. It’s the fact that you spew venom that can’t be backed up as indicated by the fact that you ignore when it’s proven not to make sense and merely come back with more nonsense. You clearly aren’t here to discuss issues; you’re here to vent your anger. That’s not what this forum is for.

[zk]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
PS – Despite their shared disdain for adipose tissue, Brutus and Brian sure seem like different people to me.[/quote]

I totally agree with that. Brian seemed calm and measured. Brutus the opposite. Brian thoughtful if misguided (in my always-possibly-wrong opinion), and couldn’t resist a threadjack. Brutus a foaming-at-the-mouth pitbull with a fat little doll in its mouth that it wouldn’t (possibly couldn’t) let go.

[zk]

[quote=Brutus]Spoken like a fatty. Fat fat fatty fat. You are fat.

Oh yeah? And in which issue of Playboy can we expect to see some lard-ass fat girl (with rolls of fat) posing nude for the drooling eyes of horny men everywhere?

Sure, there’s a few guys that like fat women, but they are a VERY small minority.

That’s because fat is not beautiful. Or healthy.[/quote]

Time to ban this loser, Rich.

For the record, Brutus, my body fat is 10.5%. Partly due to good genes and partly due to very strenuous exercise. The difference between us here is the same as it was on the topic of poor people. I understand what other people are going through and you are an angry, intolerant, ignorant, self-aggrandizing fool.

[zk]

[quote=Blogstar]Squabbling about what we peons get or don’t get outside of the context of globalism doesn’t seem to make much sense anymore. All most all people of wealth and power have on foot in globalism and are moving the other gradually out of Nationalism. Ron Paul is an exception and you see where that got him. So,yeah it does make sense to see what we get compared to the proles in other regions because it will equalize. Just a matter of a few generations. It remains to be seen if weaker hands will get to keep their property. “Middle class” is a Pavlovian lever that the rich and powerful are not yet ready to give up…kind of like “Democracy”.

Globalism is human social evolution. Nationalism is quickly becoming a smokescreen.[/quote]

Very interesting post. I’ve been pondering the question of by what method America is going to keep its strong, wealthy middle class strong and wealthy in the face of globalism. I must admit that so far I’m stumped. I have to concur with the school of thought that says that, due largely to globalism, the American middle class is not really sustainable in its current form. And I agree with Blogstar that it’s only going to take a few generations.

I do wonder if nationalism will turn uglier in the face of declining wealth for certain nations.

[zk]

[quote=Brutus]Fat is ugly. [/quote]

Some people might think so. Some might not. There are very few things that are nearly universally considered ugly. But ignorant, angry asshole is probably one of them.

[zk]

[quote=spdrun]”Mr. X doesn’t live here. If you do not leave immediately, I will call the police. If you return, I’ll assume you’re a burglar and be forced to use lethal force.”

This being said, I’ve never had a process server, but I do get collections calls for someone who lives in the same building and has a similar last name. Which is funny, since my last name isn’t all that common in the US.[/quote]

Some company used to call me all the time because somebody with the same name owed them money. I kept telling them it wasn’t me and to stop calling. They kept calling. My number was listed then, and I was the only one with my name listed in San Diego. Anyway, finally I’d had enough. A guy called, and I said, yes, I’m the one that owes you money. Can I come down and pay? Where are you at? I want to find you in particular, what’s your name? What do you look like? Then I told him that I’d been telling them to stop calling for a year or so, but now that I knew how to find him, if he or anyone else from that business called me again, I’d go down there and break his face. They never called again.

I am ashamed to admit I enjoyed that more than would be considered seemly.

[zk]

[quote=Arraya]Complete and utter nonsense. The vast majority of human existence has been mostly egalitarian. Like 99%. Humans emerged as an egalitarian social species(dependent on others for survival with mostly equal distribution of resources) and nature rewarded this interdependent and egalitarian relationship. [/quote]

Of course, it makes perfect sense that what we do now is not natural. But is it realistic to expect that we could operate the same way with 6 billion humans on earth as we did when there were a million or so? I don’t think so. So the fact that what we do isn’t natural doesn’t automatically mean it’s not optimal. Because “natural” isn’t really an option any more. Is what we have the best possible system? Not in my opinion. What is? I don’t know.

I understand that your point was that egalitarianism does not fly in the face of darwinism, and that what we do have is not natural. So I’m not contradicting you. I’m just saying that I don’t think egalitarinaism of the type we had 8,000 years ago is possible now, and therefore shouldn’t be strived for.

[zk]

[quote=Brutus]
Here’s what they can do about it:
Stop watching trash TV. Stop watching MOST TV.
Read a friggin’ book or two. Go to school.
Study.
Stop listening to rap “music.”
Stop believing that all Liberals want to do is help you.
Stop smoking pot.
Stop smoking crack.
Stop getting drunk.
Stop having babies you can’t afford.
Go to school.
Be a nerd.
Get a job, ANY job. Keep it until you can get the job you want.
Work harder.
Work better.
Think.
Read books of all types.
Read some more.
Stop watching TV.
Think.
Stop watching trash TV.
Stop blaming everyone else for your problems.
Stop waiting for the government to help you.
It ain’t 1955 anymore.
If you want to see how a poor person can get ahead, observe how a typical Asian immigrant handles America.
Do what they do.
It works.

[/quote]

Brutus, you’re a perfect example of what today’s right wing is selling and why it doesn’t work.

The above is the closest you’ve come to offering any solutions. But if one looks closely, there really isn’t a solution there, there’s just anger. There’s an assumption that the problem with poor people is that they’re just screw offs. That there’s nothing keeping them from not being poor except their own laziness and ineptitude.

You love to be angry and righteous. You love to spew venom. You don’t like to offer real solutions and, when your ideas are shot down, you ignore it and move on to something else that you’re angry about. And you probably don’t even notice that you’re doing it. Because you’re not thinking, you’re reacting.

The right wing is great at emotional manipulation, which is the only reason they get as many votes as they do. They’ve created buzzwords like “liberal” and “socialism.” You hate liberals and you hate socialism. But you don’t even know what they are. But you sure feel good using those words. And that’s what the right wing’s strategy is all about. Sell ideas that, while they have no practical value, make potential voters feel righteous and powerful and smart and good (better than those lazy, freeloading bastards their tax dollars support).

So they get elected by the angry, righteous voters, and then they do nothing but obstruct progress. Nothing but mock the left while they do nothing at all to actually govern or improve our country.

My desire is not that people vote for Democrats, necessarily. It’s that people think for themselves. Think instead of react. Think instead of follow. Not allow themselves to be emotionally manipulated. Listen to what they’re saying and see if they’re offering solutions or just being angry and righteous.

[zk]

[quote=SD Realtor]…history always has shown that having the govt make the decisions about who gets what always ends poorly because those in or aligned with govt always took advantage of the situation creating the very class based society that was supposed to be avoided.[/quote]

(Not that you were addressing me, but) I don’t see it as a matter of the government deciding who gets what. I see it as the government addressing a problem that no other entity can or will. I see the government spending our money to try to fix that problem, but not by giving our money to poor people.

David Brooks writes an excellent article:

I hadn’t thought of it in those terms, but this is probably why I used to be a conservative and why now I’m not. (For the record, I’m not a liberal, either. Some of my views coincide with those of liberals, some with conservatives. Which, if you ask me, would describe all people who can think for themselves.)

———————

some quotes from the article:

Republicans repeat formulas — government support equals dependency — that make sense according to free-market ideology, but oversimplify the real world.

[Traditional conservatives] were intensely interested in creating the sort of social, economic and political order that would encourage people to work hard, finish school and postpone childbearing until marriage.

———————–

Huh. That second one sounds just like what I’ve been saying.

[zk]

[quote=Brutus]When I see someone with a lot of tattoos or piercings, I immediately assume they are either 1. A rock star 2. An MMA fighter. 3. A loser. [/quote]

And you would be wrong a huge percentage of the time. Are you aware of that? Does that not illustrate the pitfalls of judging too quickly? Do you really think that everybody with a lot of tattoos is one of those three?

[zk]

[quote=Brutus]

We need to start being judgmental about “lifestyle choices,” such as gangsta life, out-of-wedlock babies, dropping out of high school, obesity, casual drug use, etc.
It’s NOT okay to dress and act like a thug. It’s not okay to have kids when you’re 17 and unmarried. It’s not okay to be fatter than hell. Tattoos usually aren’t cool if you want to get a good job.
When I see someone with a lot of tattoos or piercings, I immediately assume they are either 1. A rock star 2. An MMA fighter. 3. A loser.

Be judgmental. Be more open about it. It’s not “all good.”

And teaching “environmental awareness” to people who can barely read, write, or do basic math, is a waste of time. Teach the basics, first. Then the rest.[/quote]

What good is judging going to do if you don’t follow it up by educating and informing about better choices?

[zk]

[quote=Brutus]
Here’s what they can do about it:
Stop watching trash TV. Stop watching MOST TV.
Read a friggin’ book or two. Go to school.
Study.
Stop listening to rap “music.”
Stop believing that all Liberals want to do is help you.
Stop smoking pot.
Stop smoking crack.
Stop getting drunk.
Stop having babies you can’t afford.
Go to school.
Be a nerd.
Get a job, ANY job. Keep it until you can get the job you want.
Work harder.
Work better.
Think.
Read books of all types.
Read some more.
Stop watching TV.
Think.
Stop watching trash TV.
Stop blaming everyone else for your problems.
Stop waiting for the government to help you.
It ain’t 1955 anymore.
If you want to see how a poor person can get ahead, observe how a typical Asian immigrant handles America.
Do what they do.
It works.

We need to teach kids how to use capitalism to achieve their dreams. Schools should have classes in Stock Market Trading, Investing, how to handle Bank Accounts, how to accumulate capital for investing, why capitalism works and HOW it works, in short, schools should teach financial literacy.

Instead, they teach “diversity” and “social responsibility” and “gender issues” and socialist dogma of all kinds. No wonder Johnny can’t spell, read, or do basic math.

That’s what I propose.
Now you can tell me how wrong I am, how we should teach sex ed in school, teach sensitivity to “cultural issues” and “black history” and “environmental awareness” and the “tragedy of European Colonialism and American Imperialism.”[/quote]

I’m not going to tell you how wrong you are. I agree with most of that. The difference between you and me is that you think that millions of poor people are suddenly going to embrace these ideas and goals without any impetus other than what they already have, whereas I think that’s not realistic. I think that they need to be educated to study, stop doing crack, stop being gangbangers, to think, work, work hard, read, go to college, learn about money, not have babies they can’t afford, not blame others for their problems, to do what they can to break the cycle that they’re in. And I think that if you’re really concerned with the future of this country and not with opposing any government program besides the military, you’ll agree.

———————–

I don’t think teaching diversity is socialist dogma. I don’t think it has anything to do with socialism. I think you’re just using that buzzword without really even knowing what it means. That said, I agree that teaching diversity is bullshit. I think America worked better when it was a melting pot, and I think it should still be a melting pot.

I don’t think we should be teaching black history any more than we should be teaching Asian history or Hispanic history. Unless we include the part about how so many blacks got to where they are today. Which is stuck in a cycle of poverty and violence. I think we should teach that so that they know how there, which will help them understand how to get out of there.

Not sure what you mean by “gender issues,” but I’m pretty sure that’s not socialist dogma, either.

Neither is “environmental awareness” socialist dogma. I’m curious why you think we shouldn’t teach environmental awareness.

[zk]

[quote=Jazzman] The term “middle-class” is a euphemism for socialism… [/quote]

I don’t know about “euphemism for,” but I (think I) get what you mean.

Take Mongolia right now. Vast natural resources. But an undeveloped economy. Who’s going to profit from those resources? The people who already have money. If you’re poor, you’re not going to build a mining company from the ground up. Not one that can compete with existing ones, anyway. And if you own an existing mining company, are you going to pay more than barely-above-slave wages to your manual laborers? No. Because there are enough poor people in Mongolia that you’ll have plenty of takers for horrible-pay jobs. So, the rich get richer and the poor get shit on.

Does the guy who inherited a herd of goats have the same opportunity as the guy who inherited a mining company? Obviously not. Is that fair? Is that the way it should be?

America is the land of opportunity, but it’s not as different from Mongolia as some would have you believe. Does the kid from the ghetto with no dad and no money and terrible schools and crackheads and gangsters for neighbors and classmates and relatives have the same opportunity as the kid whose father is the governor? Not a chance. Sure, the rare exception will excel despite those circumstances. But a huge percentage will fail miserably. Does the government of a civilized society have a responsibility to improve the kid from the barrio’s chances?

I think it does. Is that socialism? I don’t know and I don’t care. Socialism is the buzzword du jour of the right-wing noise machine. People who don’t want to or know how to think throw that word around and expect the mere use of that word to win arguments for them.

Whatever you call it, educating and improving the lot of the underclass and lower class is not only the decent thing to do, it is what is best for America.

[zk]

[quote=flu][quote=zk][quote=flu]delete[/quote]

[quote=SD Realtor]I agree flu[/quote]

Apparently even flu might not even agree with whatever it was that he said.[/quote]

Actually, what I was gonna say I felt was slightly off topic…Because I do find Mr. Romney’s statement outlandish, disgusting, and disingenious..

BUT, I had a bad day, something I encountered at an asian optometry in a unnamed supermarket chain just infuriated this morning and wanted to vent.And decided not to…It had to deal with some unnamed social entitlement program, and I couldn’t help think about the entire “government moochers” name. But then again, it’s the 1% of the abusers that screw it up for the remaining 99% of the people that need it…So I’ll refrain.[/quote]

I understand. My comment was lame. Sorry.

[Author]

Posts